UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, April 30, 2017

I'm a longtime resident of Albany, along with my wife, children and grandchildren. In contrast to an earlier letter writer, we're very glad we don't fluoridate our water. Everyone wants fewer cavities, but government studies show fluoridation only reduces decay by about half a cavity per child, if that.

World Health Organization data showed fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations have essentially the same cavity rate. Fluoride's preventive actions are mainly topical, such as from toothpaste, not from swallowing.

But, even if fluoridation was effective, I'd still be very opposed.

The National Academy of Science's 2006 report "Fluoride in Drinking Water" concluded that fluoride interferes with the brain, is an endocrine disruptor, decreases thyroid function and causes fluorosis, among many other health concerns.

When fluoridation was introduced, cigarettes were considered safe, DDT was thought to be healthy and leaded gasoline was the norm. We learned all were harmful, as we've now found out with fluoridation. It's an obsolete practice not supported by the vast majority of the world's nations, cities, health and medical organizations.

Moreover, putting any drug into the water is simply wrong, taking away our right to choose whether we want to ingest it. Albany is wise to be fluoridation-free.

Fluoride has no place in our drinking water – ClaireViadro

On Feb. 2, operational failures at OWASA increased fluoride levels to 8.4 times higher than normal. OWASA’s dangerous fiasco cost local businesses an estimated $3 million to $5 million.

The substance added to OWASA water is fluorosilicic acid, a toxic corrosive. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) information on fluorosilicic acid recommends its use for “tanning of animal hides” and “hardening of cement.” MSDS toxicity indications state that “ingestion may cause burns of the gastrointestinal tract leading to vomiting, acidosis, bloody diarrhea, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, and shock,” along with circulatory system effects and death. Fluoride toothpastes contain warnings to get medical help or immediately contact Poison Control if toothpaste is swallowed.

Newsweekquestioned the “outdated” scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water in a 2015 summary of a Cochrane Collaboration review. Cochrane reviews are “the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies.” What was the review’s take-home message? “Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth” or baby teeth. A medical school dean stated that his prior pro-fluoridation viewpoint was “completely reversed” and he was “amazed by the lack of evidence.”

OWASA Board members dismiss the countless reports of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. A seminal 2014 article in Lancet Neurology(by brain development experts at Harvard and Mt. Sinai School of Medicine) unambiguously described fluoride as a human neurotoxicant that lowers children’s IQ and disrupts behavior. A 2015 article in Environmental Healththat examined exposure to fluoridated water and subsequent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (prevalence among U.S. children found significantly higher ADHD rates in states where a greater proportion of children drink fluoridated water. The authors comment on “the developing brain’s particular sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of fluoride” and the “window of vulnerability” during “prenatal and early postnatal development.”

The OWASA board cites some health organizations’ support for water fluoridation but ignores the numerous high-level scientists and organizations who have spoken out against water fluoridation for decades. Top EPA scientists have stated that “a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating a toxic and prophylactically useless substance is wrong.”

Moreover, news reports surface almost daily about regulatory agencies that are functioning as “captured agencies” for industry. An Environmental Protection Agency deputy director buried evidence linking glyphosate (the key Roundup ingredient) to cancer, notwithstanding the World Health Organization’s determination that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. The New York Times reported that FDA spied on and dismissed five scientists who reported that Food and Drug Administration hid dangers associated with FDA-approved drugs and medical devices.

Ninety-seven percent of Western Europe wisely rejects water fluoridation. Many North American communities are doing the same. In North Carolina, where the state does not mandate water fluoridation, concerned citizens are calling attention to water fluoridations’ very real risks. After the horrors of World War II, the Nuremberg Code prohibited experimental human treatment without informed consent. Toxic fluorosilicic acid has no business being forcibly administered to the public – including pregnant women and vulnerable infants – via the water supply.

Claire Viadro, MPH, Ph.D., is a parent, public health professional, and OWASA customer.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Published on 6 Sep 2014
(Truthstream Media.com) In this special double episode of Truthstream News, Aaron and Melissa take on the CDC whistleblower and MMR-autism scandal (and that's just for starters) — exposing the lies and obfuscations that have hurt untold numbers. Recently released audio of the good doc has now been leaked where he says he would NEVER shoot his pregnant wife up with a thimerosal-containing vaccine.

It's shameful, but that's just the icing on the vaccine cake. The evidence that the CDC "hid the decline" of skyrocketing autism rates in connection with a vaccine is just the beginning. Did you know the government's health agencies never even tested thimerosal, the 50% ethylmercury preservative shot into thousands of children daily for decades and still given to pregnant women in the form of a flu shot? In fact, the CDC says some vaccines given to children still contain trace amounts...

There is evidence that the chickenpox vaccine has caused more cases of shingles — a much more dangerous, painful and debilitating condition — while the HPV and flu vaccines are just the latest to put corporate profits and insider connections above human health and vaccine safety. In the "Olds," we take a startling look at the SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine — a massive and deeply unsettling scandal of immense proportions that may have caused cancer in tens or even hundreds of millions of people!

From potentially dangerous ingredients to undisclosed Big Pharma ties and more, this episode will change the way you look at vaccine "science" and leave you with questions that the government won't soon answer but that we need to keep asking until they do!

Thank you for viewing! Please help to spread this video and others like it within your social media reach, or please consider donating at: http://truthstreammedia.com/support-t...

This program is not funded or directed by any outside sources; it represents the often difficult and dedicated work of two activists trying to understand, share, critique and change. Support of any kind — informational, spiritual or material — is greatly appreciated to keep this going!

Mild fluorosis that only dentists can see? Who is he kidding.
No mention of money spent on teeth whitening and other expensive treatments to counter the staining of the teeth.
40% if it was true wouldn't the York review have found that convincing in 2000.
No mention of the contaminants in the acid they pour in the water with the fluoride.If it affects the teeth it must have an affect on the bones apart from the thyroid.
It's sugar not lack of fluoride and that causes all the other problems like obesity. Discusses fluoridation? No discussion just edited propaganda.

The author also disappointed me when he repeated the American Dental Association-propagated (and fluoride industry) myth that the widespread fluoridation of municipal water supplies with the hazardous waste by-product of the fertilizer industry (fluoride) has no downsides (implying that fluoride supplementation is totally safe for the bodies and brains of children, notwithstanding the documented proof that the ingestion of that neurotoxic mineral can cause lowered IQ levels, hypothyroidism and brain damage, as well as fluorosis of bones and teeth.

The statement also ignored the fact that the fertilizer industry’s waste products contain an variable combination of fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride, in addition to untested-for-contaminants like arsenic. It is important to note that fluoridation of water supplies is banned in most municipalities in Europe (on the basis of good, unbiased science), with no evidence of any increase in the incidence of dental caries in those non-fluoridated communities. (Explore www.fluoridealert.org for much more – and also read the warning on the next tube of fluoridated Crest toothpaste that you can find on the grocery store shelf.)

Gas in the drink is more acidic than wine, fruit juice and even VINEGAR, dentist warns
Adam Stone, a dentist in Harley Street, warns fizzy water is extremely acidic
With the same pH as diet cola, the bubbles erode your tooth enamel over time
Here we explain why - and offer tips on how you can combat the dreaded effects
t's considered the virtuous option compared to other fizzy drinks and often more refreshing than bog standard still water.
But sparkling water is not as harmless as most of us think – and is actually more acidic than wine and vinegar, a dentist has warned.
'Most people have no idea that fizzy water is extremely acidic, it's pH3 on the acidity scale' says Adam Stone, a dentist in London's Harley Street.
'The bubbles erode your tooth enamel – and over time this causes painful, yellow cracked teeth.'
With pH7 being neutral, the figures make alarming reading:

There were heated exchanges in the council chamber in recent days as
elected members clashed over the use of fluoride in public water supplies.

Cllrs Peggy Nolan and Seamus Butler locked horns over claims the State is
paying €33m each year to treat drinking water with the chemical additive.

Cllr Nolan, who raised the topic by calling for a Ministerial Order to be
sought for its discontinuation said she was not raising the matter on foot of
reputed health fears.

“I can’t understand why it is such a huge issue in this county,” she said.

“Whether you believe that it’s detrimental to our health or not I am taking
that out of the equation in this notice of motion.”

She said the large sums involved in adding fluoride to water systems up and
down the country was indicative of public misspending.

“As far as I am concerned it is a total waste (of money) and a
fallacy.

“That €33m would be best spent providing the services of orthodontics and
cut the lists that are in their thousands, if it was to provide dental care for
our elderly and if it was to provide proper dental care for our schoolchildren,”
she argued.

Her opposite number across the chamber floor, Cllr Butler, put forward an
entirely different view however.

He professed his knowledge of the area was sketchy to say the least, but
pointed to the stance which continued to be taken by industry experts.

“When the Irish Dental Association come out and say we should not have
fluoride in clean water I will support it,” he countered.

“It’s a fallacy that you are going to save money and put it back into
children’s teeth. You are going to be treating them for dental care on a huge
basis if we didn’t have fluoridation.

“I am not an expert but I think dentists are the experts and if they say it
is doing a good job then as long as they say that it behoves me as non expert to
believe the experts so if you know more than the dentists then fair
enough.”

Those words drew a belligerent response from Cllr Nolan who accused Cllr
Butler of “getting personal” over the issue.

“I’m not claiming to be an expert Seamus,” she replied snappily.

“I have researched this.

“Why has Europe stopped it? Why has Northern Ireland stopped it?

“There’s no need to get personal by throwing ‘Am I an expert?’ into the
mix.”

As the war of words between the pair intensified, Director of Services John
Brannigan indicated the State had in fact paid out €3m on fluoridation costs
instead of the €33m Cllr Nolan had earlier alluded to.

LETTER: ask your county council election candidate for their views on fluoridationDespite many requests to do so most sitting and potential County council councillors have not publicly expressed their position on the issue of medicating Cumbrians through their water supply.

Adding an inadequately researched chemical to drinking water without knowing the long-term health implications of that action is an issue that affects all Cumbrians and needs consideration before the coming elections

Currently Cumbria County Council authorises and uses public health money to fluoridate the communities of West Cumbria. This will not change unless there is a justifiable public outcry and one of the best ways that can be achieved is through the current election process.

The only political party that has made a commitment on their election leaflets to stop water fluoridation in Cumbria is the Green Party.

You can learn more about the accumulation of this chemical in your body at our website.http://www.lakestay.co.uk/fluoridefreecumbria/.

Please ask your local county council candidates their position on water fluoridation and raise your concerns with them.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Poisoning Our Minds: A call to action in the global fight against water fluoridation

Published on 26 Apr 2017
Members of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance met in April 2017 in Bedford, the heart of the UK's battleground against water fluoridation. Fluoridated since 1970, Bedford has campaigned successfully to keep fluoride out of its water for the last seven years, but the chemical could be put back in at any time - unless the contract is terminated.
Members of UK FFFA travelled from north and south of the UK as well as the US to exchange ideas and devise a plan to educate the public of the dangers of fluoridated water, in particular the impact on the brain: the neurotoxicity of minute levels of fluoride, and help build a movement to halt damaging pro-fluoridation government policies.
For more info see:
ukfffa.org.uk
fluoridealert.org
fluoridefreebedford.org

Open Letter to Sir Professor Peter Gluckman

Open Letter to Sir Professor Peter GluckmanChief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

Dear Professor Gluckman,

We read your Opinion Piece in the Herald on Saturday 22nd May. We were heartened to see that you believe, “Marching may be seen as one way of engaging, but it cannot replace the harder work of making ourselves available, making our work relevant and making science difficult to ignore”.

We would like to take you up on your commendable offer to “make yourself available” at this crucial time to discuss fluoridation of the public drinking water supply across New Zealand before the second reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

We therefore cordially invite you to join Professor Paul Connett, Fluoride Action Network Founder and St Lawrence University Chemistry and Toxicology Professor Emeritus, in a moderated public discussion or open debate. As you probably know, Prof Connett participated in a quality open debate on television with Malaghan Institute’s Professor Mike Berridge last year, moderated by Cameron Bennett.

TV producers at Q&A and The Nation told us last week that they are keen to host a debate between Auckland University Professor Michelle Dickinson (Science Media Blogger ‘Nanogirl’) and Prof Connett. However, Dr Dickinson has now told Q&A that she does not want to go through with the debate.

Health Select Committee Members have referred to the 2014 Fluoride Report authored by Professor David Skegg and yourself many times, and cited it as an important fluoridation resource.

We estimate that half of the population of New Zealand does not agree with fluoridation, and many people are extremely concerned about it. We are now calling on you to make yourself available, and to engage in a meaningful and balanced public dialogue about fluoridation with a scientist of equal standing. Together you can make the necessary information accessible to lay people.

Please advise when you are available and we can arrange media and travel details.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Members of the public were invited to ask questions about the science and ethics of water fluoridation to a panel of scientists, politicians and health professionals, in a free event for Hull Science Festival.

The ‘Water Fluoridation Conversation’ was the first of a new format for our public events, designed to enable two-way conversations between scientists and the public on everyday issues with a link to chemistry.

Hull is one of the worst areas in the UK for dental health, and Hull City Council is currently exploring a scheme to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Fluoridating public water supplies has been shown to have a hugely positive impact on dental health in other areas of the country, but the process is not without opposition, and many local residents have concerns about the plans.

Professor Mark Lorch, associate dean for engagement at the University of Hull’s science faculty, and director of the Hull Science Festival, suggested the topic for our first conversation. He wanted to provide a space for people to find out more about the chemistry behind such an emotive local issue, and give people an opportunity to raise their concerns with those qualified to talk about the issue from the perspectives of health, ethics, politics and science.

The panel, chosen for their experience and expertise rather than their position on the issue, featured Alan Johnson, Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle and former health secretary; Barry Cockroft CBE, former chief dental officer for England; Dr John Beal MBE, senior lecturer in dental public health at the University of Leeds; Simon Hearnshaw, a Hull general dental practitioner; and Dr Joanna Buckley, our education coordinator for North East England.

Dr Susan Vickers, our public engagement lead, chaired the event, giving each panel member two minutes to sum up their experience and opinions, before opening the floor to questions from the audience.

“Everyone must be allowed to have an opinion on the future, and this means giving the public the confidence to discuss matters relating to chemistry,” explains Susan. “There are ethical issues and personal preferences to consider with issues like water fluoridation, even if the weight of scientific evidence currently available shows that it is safe. Events like this embrace chemistry as a topic for conversation and allow chemical scientists and the public to listen and respond to each other.”

The resulting 90 minute discussion covered questions on health concerns, how to tell sound scientific research from poorly conducted studies, whether water fluoridation could be seen as ‘mass medication’, and whether artificially fluoridated water is chemically different to that containing naturally occurring fluoride.

Alan Johnson MP also gave an overview of how the plans for water fluoridation would proceed; assuring audience members there would be full public consultations before any decisions were made.

While emotions occasionally ran high, the debate between audience members and panellists remained civil and respectful. A particularly poignant moment came as a father expressed fears that his young son might be allergic to fluoride, and had suffered some hospitalising side effects caused by, his parents believe, fluoridated toothpaste. Local dentist Simon Hearnshaw explained it was unlikely to be fluoride, but could be one of the many other substances found in toothpaste, and offered his support to find out what was causing the problem.

Audience member Anusha, a Masters student in dental public health at the University of Sheffield, had studied the science behind water fluoridation, but hadn’t previously understood public concerns about the ethics. “Before I came to the event I was sure that we should be fluoridating water for health benefits,” she said, “But people raised questions about things I hadn’t thought about – for example why should people be forced to drink fluoridated water? It made me think more about the wider issues.”

Systems analyst Joseph, also in the audience, said: “It was really interesting; there was a lot of good science and it was good to hear people pushing back against some of the less scientific viewpoints. I liked that someone said ‘you can have an opinion on the ethics but you can’t have an opinion on the science’. I think [the format] is good as it does mean people can voice their opinions.”

Not very well attended and very one sided by the look of the panel."The panel, chosen for their experience and expertise rather than their position on the issue" Who is kidding who?

Albuquerque, N.M. — Jane McGinley's first exposure to working in dentistry came during her high school years in rural Illinois, where she worked as an assistant in a local dental office two evenings a week and Saturdays for $1 an hour.

Ms. McGinley

The humble first job led to a career in dental hygiene and for the past 20 years as staff at the American Dental Association, where she is the go-to resource for ADA members and staff alike when it comes to facts and information about community water fluoridation.

The American Association for Public Health Dentistry on April 23 honored Ms. McGinley during the National Oral Health Conference in Albuquerque for being a "tireless advocate promoting the science, facing the challenges and creating strategies surrounding fluoridation." The group's immediate past president, Dr. David Cappelli, presented the award.

In her current role at the ADA, manager of fluoridation and preventive health activities, Ms. McGinley monitors community water fluoridation at the national, state and local levels. She regularly works directly with ADA member dentists who request assistance and resources to help educate their communities about the benefits of water fluoridation. She also provides technical assistance to coalitions and others involved in fluoridation efforts.

She also coordinates the meetings and affairs of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee. She has assisted that committee in the development and publication with the last three editions of Fluoridation Facts, which is widely used in fluoridation campaigns.

She also coordinates the meetings and affairs of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee.

"Almost anyone who's had to deal with community water fluoridation issues knows Jane," said Dr. Valerie Peckosh, chair of the advisory committee. "Her incredible wealth of knowledge and her dedication are unmatched.".....................Shame no one has persuaded her she might be ill informed.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

F.A.N. newsletter

It’s official: the Fluoride Action
Network--along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups--has
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to
their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation. This may be the lawsuit we have
all been waiting decades for.

According to FAN’s attorney, Michael
Connett, “this case will present the first time a court will consider the
neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an
unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in
contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the
right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’—meaning
federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence
without deference to the EPA's judgment.”

Industry, legal, and environmental
observers following the EPA's implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed
out that a
lawsuit challenging the EPA's denial of our petition would provide a test
case for the agency's interpretation that petitioners must provide a
comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction
on a particular use. Legal experts have suggested that the EPA’s interpretation
essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21
petitions impossible to meet.Background InformationOn
Nov 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic
Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International
Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several
individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate
addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The full TSCA petition can
be accessed here, a shorter 8-page summary here, and our press release here.
We
presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence
demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S.
children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the Agency with evidence
showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any
risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We
believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that
fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.
On February 27th, the EPA
published their response. In
their decision the EPA claimed, “Thepetition has not set forth a
scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered
neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the
purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise
from fluoride exposure in the U.S."

As many independent scientists now
recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin. The
question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what
dose.

While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies,
to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological
imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of
the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these
studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA's own
Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a
robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and
the doses that humans receive. We presented the EPA with over 180 studies
showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g. reduced IQ), and pointed out
that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or
precariously close to, the levels millions of U.S. children now receive.
Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA
has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to
fluoride -- and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal
of the Petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides that citizens can
challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics
trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). We
welcome therefore having these issues considered by a federal
court.
Winning this lawsuit will require a full team
effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in
history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially
fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution. See below
for details about making donations and about our “thank you” gift for
supporters.Contribute to FAN’s Legal
Fund
Help
us ensure that regulators are held accountable legally for choosing to ignore
our petition. This lawsuit could be the nail in the coffin for fluoridation
worldwide.To make a tax-deductible
donation to the Fluoride Action Network, a project of the American Environmental
Health Studies Project, you can either:

Donate online using
our secure
server. If you should experience difficulty in donating
at our secure server, please call Network For Good at 1-888-284-7978 and
press option 3 to make your donation over the phone.

*Please note that some corporations
match tax deductible donations made by their employees to some non-profits. We
qualify for this. This is the information to provide your corporation finance
people, the parent body for FAN is the American Environmental Health Studies
Project, Inc, registered in Vermont.

Thank You Gift

Michael is featured in a new video available on DVD
and flash drive, "Fluoride and the Brain." In
this he explains that fluoride's ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip
of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride
is neurotoxic.
FAN has also made a comprehensive
collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive.
This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner's toolkit. Here's what
you'll find on the drive:

A successful project which has led to more children brushing their teeth in Sheffield is set to be rolled out to more nurseries and schools in the city.

Tooth brushing clubs will be set up in 40 more schools and nurseries across the city to encourage more children to brush their teeth after figures from Public Health England show that in Sheffield the average five-year-old child has one decayed, missing or filled tooth - slightly above the national average.

A child from Meynell Nursey, in Southey Green, brushes his teeth

The tooth brushing scheme has been running in 26 primary schools and nurseries since 2014.

Children are provided with the free toothbrushes and toothpaste as well training, information and the skills they need to ensure that children learn about the importance of regularly brushing their teeth from an early age. Now, tooth brushing clubs are to be set up at 40 additional schools and nurseries, as a partnership between Sheffield Council and Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust’s oral health promotion team.. Annie Farrell, nursery manager at Meynell Nursey in Southey Green, has been running a tooth brushing club since 2014.

She said: “We encourage all the children at nursery to clean their teeth every day before they eat. We talk to the children about the importance of tooth brushing and parents have told us that children have been eager to clean their teeth at home. “Last year we worked with a family whose little boy refused to clean his teeth at home. After working on this in stages at toothbrush club, he started to do this at home too.”
Each year the nursery also runs a session for parents, to explain what is done in tooth brushing club and to support parents in their understanding of good practice.
Annie added: “The children really enjoy this activity. Some of their recent comments include ‘it's fun and makes me happy’ and 'it makes my teeth shine.”

Greg Fell, director of public health at Sheffield Council, said: “There is no doubt that getting all children into a good tooth brushing routine can prevent decay and ultimately save teeth.
“I’m so pleased that brushing clubs are being extended to 40 more schools and nurseries across the city – it’s great that more children will be helped to get into the habit of brushing their teeth.
“This project is partnership working at its best; the council, health services and schools working together to encourage children and families to brush! brush! brush!”
Jim Rutherford, a dentist at Pitsmoor Dental Health Centre said: “I often see the worst problems with children who constantly consume food and drinks with a high sugar content."
“Tooth brushing clubs help to reinforce the importance of good brushing and a low sugar diet to children and their parents.
"We always advise brushing two times a day for two minutes with a fluoride toothpaste and to avoid sugary snacks and drinks. As well as this it is essential for children to regularly visit their own dentist for routine checkups."

Hospitals in Glasgow, and indeed around the UK, are seeing thousands of very young children each year needing baby teeth removed. The Faculty of Dental Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons, which compiled the data, blames tooth decay linked to sugary diets. Figures show there were 9,206 extractions carried out on children aged four and younger between April 2015 and March 2016.

That is a rise of about 24% in the space of a decade – more than you would expect from population growth alone, says the faculty.

“When you see the numbers tallied up like this, it becomes abundantly clear that the sweet habits of our children are having a devastating effect on the state of their teeth” says lead researcher Professor Nigel Hunt.

“What is really distressing about these figures is that 90% of tooth decay is preventable through reducing sugar consumption, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and routine dental visits”

At Tiwari Watson Dental Care in Glasgow we are passionate about helping to ensure our younger patients (and of course their parents!) get into good oral healthcare habits when it comes to looking after baby teeth.

The key is to understand that tooth decay is totally preventable – largely by limiting sugary food and drink and making sure children visit the dentist regularly, as well as brush their teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.

Use only a smear of toothpaste if your child is younger than three. Use a pea-sized blob thereafter

Make sure the toothpaste is lower-strength, containing 1,000ppm fluoride

Monitor your children brushing their teeth until they are least years old (to ensure they are brushing properly)

As your local dental practice in Glasgow, we are here to help you to enjoy a happy, heathly smile for life. For more information about the part that healthy diet plays in maintaining a healthy smile, please visit the Oral Health Foundation website >>

If you are worried about any aspect of your child’s smile, and would like to discuss this with a member of our team, please book an appointment at Tiwari Watson Dental Care in Glasgow by calling us on 0141 557 3488 or request an appointment with us via our Online Appointment Request Form >>

Bit obvious that it is sugar. Still have to be thankful they haven't called for fluoridation.

Even More Researchers Acknowledge Fluoridation’s Lack of Effectiveness Data

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).

Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries." Other scientists concur. For example, Swedish researchers, in "PLOS one," February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [MdDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable”

Fluoride's cavity-preventing foundation is based on human experimental studies which began in 1945. Errors and omissions in those studies were pointed out by dental researcher Phillip Sutton and others as early as 1959. Fluoridation uncertainty existed from the outset. Reasonable voices of scientific opposition were ignored, for example, that of respected physician, Dr. George Waldbott. See: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/.../fluoridation...

So it's not surprising that 72 years after fluoridation began, reaching record numbers of Americans via the water, food and beverages made with that water, dental products (virtually all non invented when fluoridation began), fluoride in medicine and air pollution, dentists have been complicet in creating a new public health problem - fluoride overdose symptoms - dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) now afflicting 58% of US adolescents, according to federal data.

In 2015, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence that proves fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” or that fluoridation cessation increases decay rates.

Fluoridation is one the biggest public health blunders of modern times, a political boondoggle, not supported by science. It must stop.

Americans are fluoride-overdosed and dentist-deficient. It's odd that a dentist is advocating fluoridating the poor (without any evidence of need) instead of rallying her profession to actually treat the poor.

This is sick! Just look at what we are putting in our bodies! They are dumbing us Americans down using fluoride, by putting it in ALL of our water, bottled and tap!
Boiling Down Drinking Water "Fluoride Test"

Sunday, April 23, 2017

‘Vaccine industry zealots believe in destroying the freedom to think. Their actions — and especially the actions of sociopathic medical violence pushers like Dr. David Gorski — reflect the kind of destruction of knowledge we’ve all witnessed throughout history when evil regimes burned books in order to control the official narrative. (Dr. Gorski is a high-level editor at Wikipedia and writes all the entries involving vaccines, chemotherapy and cancer surgery, blocking all dissenting facts or information he doesn’t like.)

There is no question whatsoever that vaccines cause widespread harm and death — see this revelation about the UK government paying out tens of millions in damages after hundreds of children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine — yet this simple, irrefutable fact is not even allowed to be debated today due to the coordinated, pharma-funded effort to absolutely destroy any person who even asks a simple question about vaccine safety or vaccine ingredients.’

Saturday, April 22, 2017

The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water.

Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoridesource.

Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years.

Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste..............

"Nanogirl" Dr Michelle Dickinson Reneges on Fluoride Debate

The question has to be asked - why after denigrating opponents of fluoridation and claiming that she has the science on her side, will Dr Dickinson not front up to a public debate like she agreed?

Auckland University Professor Michelle Dickinson, aka science blogger “Nanogirl” has backed down on debating Professor Paul Connett, Senior Advisor to the Fluoride Action Network. Dr Dickinson agreed in an email correspondence on Sunday with Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) that "she was happy to debate" and that "it was a debate that needs to happen". She said she would debate Prof Connett, providing it was on a mainstream television channel. The Nation and Q+A TV programmes both said they were willing to host the fluoridation debate.

However, she is now claiming she never agreed in the first place. FFNZ says they have the email trail to prove she did agree and will provide it on request. They say Michelle needs to explain herself.

Dickinson has been an outspoken critic of people opposed to fluoridation on her blog and said in an opinion piece for the NZ Herald that fluoridation opponents consistently prolong the fluoridation debate and referred to them as “purveyors of non-science woo woo.”

Media Spokesperson for FFNZ, Mary Byrne says, “It looks like Michelle has found out the hard way, that it is not the opponents of fluoridation that are purveying non-science woo-woo, but the promoters. This should give the public and decision makers, who take their cue from people such as Michelle, serious pause for thought”.

Dickinson blogged that water is toxic if we have too much of it and asked, “does this mean we need to start warning people about the dangers of drinking water too?” She added, “you would need to drink 1220 glasses of water in a day for it to be possibly toxic” and “perhaps your messages should be less concerned about the levels of fluoride in the water, and more concerned about the dangers of water itself!

Byrne says, “Michelle has now probably read a response to her blog from Prof Connett, where he explained that the activists that Michelle was criticising were actually correct. Fluoride does have harmful effects at low doses. The Ministry of Health reports that 41% of children in New Zealand have some form of dental fluorosis, the first outward sign of fluoride toxicity. This proves children are getting a toxic dose. Perhaps Michelle had never thought about it like this before, and has now realised how mistaken she has been”.

If Dickinson is not comfortable to front a debate, then Sir Peter Gluckman should make himself available. Mary Byrne says, “The New Zealand public and our MPs are relying on the science Prof Gluckman has provided. It would say an awful lot if he was not prepared to publicly stand by his scientific position in a debate.”

Fluoride Free New Zealand says it is well overdue for a proper debate to be held on this subject. “For too long we have only heard one side of the argument and we are tired of people like Michelle denigrating those of us opposed to fluoridation when they don’t have the guts to stand up in public and defend it in a fair debate.” Mary adds, “If she has realised there is more to the issue than she thought, she should have the integrity to say so.”

Parliament will debate the 2nd reading of the fluoridation bill on the 6th of June.